I did have an MS Sidewinder that was quite nice until it broke, so I now have an awful Saitek stick for the time being. But, and its a big but, unless you have space for a decent separates, which I really don't have currently, it makes very little difference. I'm not a pilot, but I been lucky enough to take the controls of a Cessna more than once and even a half decent control setup is a million miles away from the real thing. So for me its mostly about getting the visuals somewhat right and enjoying it for what it is as best I can.

 

At the end of the day, it's whatever you feel is a comfortable compromise for you. I flew with low end equipment for many years until I could afford better stuff. That's the great thing about flightsim. Every new thing makes it better

 

 

1) 64 bit and that's basically confirmed

2) A new, global lighting engine

3) A much greater LOD for autogen

4) Make it possible for higher resolution land class textures OR a different scenery system all together that does away with the disjointed splatter approach and instead has individual roads and buildings built in a scene from the ground up

 

Quite close to my wishlist Bonchie! All I'd add is for the engine to support next-gen API capabilities to allow for scaled improvements in performance (even if this isn't enabled on day-1).

I would reverse engineer X-P's scenery engine, based upon Lvars?...variables found in .dat or .ini files

 

And rewrite in "round-world" code. If X-plane can do it via Austin's pen, then you guys at LM should be able to give us a real world and optimize code to address it the way that X-plane does.

 

And...The dirty little secret, that virtually all FS9/FSX/P3d scenery can be converted to X-plane tiles...so scenery conversion is already done…the code is out there.

 

 

 

Chas

I have no idea what will be in it, but I can tell you what I hope for and what it would take to get me back in the fold.

 

1) 64 bit and that's basically confirmed

2) A new, global lighting engine

3) A much greater LOD for autogen

4) Make it possible for higher resolution land class textures OR a different scenery system all together that does away with the disjointed splatter approach and instead has individual roads and buildings built in a scene from the ground up

 

 

 

 

Good list indeed. I would add

 

5) DX12 support as an option.

 

Kind regards, MIchael

No need for that...

The old flight dynamics engine is actually a masterpiece and is still way ahead of anything that one could find for the PC.

Even the 10-15 years old multimillion bucks Level-D simulators have less dynamic capabilities compared to this small old one.

 

Of course it only works well if a given aircraft is designed very well...

 

Potroh

 

That is not my experience. I instruct both new and older FFS and one of our sim techs is a desktop sim guy having used FS9, FSX, P3D. According to our simtech, the decade-old legacy sims still compute tens of thousands times more aerodynamic calculations per second than FSX. Our newest UPRT certified sims compute millions times more aerodynamic calculations. You also have to consider that the aerodynamics and atmospheric model is run on a separate computer and the sim is basically a self-contained network of computers. 

 

PC Desktop simulation is great but it is also plagued with trying to do everything on one box. The actual number of computers in an FFS is staggering. Every display is a computer, the FMSs are computers, the weather radar is a computer, the motion are computers, aerodynamics and atmosphere are a computer, sounds are computers, visuals are computers, and the instructor's station more computers. When you peel back the skin of a Level D FFS the racks of computers are staggering.

 

 Anyone who thinks that their desktop sim comes close to the fidelity of an FFS is simply fooling themselves. Maybe one from the 60s or 70s, but in the late 90s most sims moved from mainframes to COTS PC hardware and the sophistication and capability increased many times. The only area I would say that desktop simulation exceeds most FFS sim is visuals. Desktop simulation is not governed by FAR Part 60 and thus the developers can keep shoving in more graphic goodies. FFS have to provide stutter-free visuals over the big 140 x 40 degree screen.  

KenG, on 05 Jan 2017 - 1:22 PM, said:

The only area I would say that desktop simulation exceeds most FFS sim is visuals.

Precisely. It really is the visual cues that make desktop simulation appealing. People can say what they want, it's the visuals that keep people in flightsim. If something doesn't look realistic, its much harder to fool yourself into thinking that you are simulating actual flying.

 

The experience of home flightsimming is 100% psychological - as is a PC game. You aren't really flying, or shooting, or kiiling or jumping. You're just sitting at your desk - like your neighbour, and his neighbour.

The very best scenario is that all three of you are online, flying together in a controlled virtual world far from your physical address - but one that looks so real, that you believe you are there.

 

That's the power of flightsim.

I control all of my virtual planes with a CH Flightstick PRO joystick. I have a Logitech G27 wheel and gear shifter unit clamped to my desk for Assetto Corsa, so I do not have any room for flight yokes or other complex flightsim equipment.

bonchie, on 04 Jan 2017 - 4:24 PM, said:

I own a 182P in real life and no simulator will ever really get it right, mainly because so much of flying has to do with feeling forces and trim.

Often in the past, after actual flying, I have come back to my flightsim (as amazing as I think my setup is) and felt most underwhelmed and disheartened. I think the smaller the aircraft, the less flightsim is able to replicate the experience of being there.

Good list indeed. I would add

 

5) DX12 support as an option.

 

Kind regards, MIchael

 

Would indeed be nice! But... wouldn't it require Windows 10, then?

A complete overhaul of the lighting engine within Prepar3D would be fantastic, though!

FFS have to provide stutter-free visuals over the big 140 x 40 degree screen.  

 

Sorry meant to say 240 degree screens. Old technology was 170 degrees.

Also on my wishlist for the V4 is a decent inbuilt data recorder for smooth playbacks from any perspective.

 

 

Anyone who thinks that their desktop sim comes close to the fidelity of an FFS is simply fooling themselves. Maybe one from the 60s or 70s, but in the late 90s most sims moved from mainframes to COTS PC hardware and the sophistication and capability increased many times.

 

The 60's or 70's sims hardly had any visuals my friend, apart from a plotting-board with a moving camera.

 

I often work on Level-D sims, doing exactly that, trying to upgrade their outdated dynamics data to the proper QTG one - if the client is capable to cover it financially that is.

But if you insist that I'm just fooling myself, let it be...

That means I know not what I'm doing and those who hire me for good bucks, neither know nothing about their own equipment.

That is not my experience. I instruct both new and older FFS and one of our sim techs is a desktop sim guy having used FS9, FSX, P3D. According to our simtech, the decade-old legacy sims still compute tens of thousands times more aerodynamic calculations per second than FSX. Our newest UPRT certified sims compute millions times more aerodynamic calculations. You also have to consider that the aerodynamics and atmospheric model is run on a separate computer and the sim is basically a self-contained network of computers. 

 

PC Desktop simulation is great but it is also plagued with trying to do everything on one box. The actual number of computers in an FFS is staggering. Every display is a computer, the FMSs are computers, the weather radar is a computer, the motion are computers, aerodynamics and atmosphere are a computer, sounds are computers, visuals are computers, and the instructor's station more computers. When you peel back the skin of a Level D FFS the racks of computers are staggering.

 

 Anyone who thinks that their desktop sim comes close to the fidelity of an FFS is simply fooling themselves. Maybe one from the 60s or 70s, but in the late 90s most sims moved from mainframes to COTS PC hardware and the sophistication and capability increased many times. The only area I would say that desktop simulation exceeds most FFS sim is visuals. Desktop simulation is not governed by FAR Part 60 and thus the developers can keep shoving in more graphic goodies. FFS have to provide stutter-free visuals over the big 140 x 40 degree screen.  

 

Finally someone talking some sense  

Would indeed be nice! But... wouldn't it require Windows 10, then?

 

Yep. That's why I wrote as an option.

 

Kind regeards, Michael

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

 

Thanks for posting this.  So much opinion from non pilots on these forums and who knows what to believe.